[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2008-04-15 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is now committed and ready to be included in JBossWS 3.0.2. The configuration options are described here: - http://jbws.dyndns.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=WS-Security_options#Advanced_tuning:_timestamp_verification View the original post :

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2008-02-11 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is currently scheduled for JBoss 2.0.4 i.e. the next release. In general when a fix is important for you, please vote for it in the jira too. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4128345#4128345 Reply to the post :

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2008-02-11 Thread memema
I agree, please fix this View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4128319#4128319 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4128319 ___ jboss-user mailing list

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2007-11-15 Thread Sefai
why this issue is postponed constantly,this is a serious bug in my opinion,makes security useless and has a very easy resolution that can be set through config files? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4105064#4105064 Reply to the post :

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2007-04-20 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This issues has been postponed. You're welcome to have a go View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4039176#4039176 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4039176 ___

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2007-04-11 Thread openyourmind
Hi, We have the same problem and we would be happy to use the future feature Jason asked. http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBWS-1316 Bye OYM View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4036341#4036341 Reply to the post :

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2007-03-26 Thread rmartony
A workaround using a system property (jboss.ws.timestampTolerance) to set tolerance: | // Source File Name: TimestampVerificationOperation.java | | package org.jboss.ws.wsse; | | import java.io.PrintStream; | import java.util.Calendar; | import

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2006-10-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have added a feature request for this: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBWS-1316 In the meantime you could manually patch the code. If you end up adding the full feature, and would like to offer your work to the community, feel free to submit a patch. Thanks, -Jason View the original

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2006-10-24 Thread a238859
That's what I am trying to find out myself. Microsoft WSE has such setting, but I have not been able to find anything like that in JBossWS. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=3980405#3980405 Reply to the post :

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2006-10-23 Thread a238859
The same problem is affecting us as well. We cannot exactly synchronize our servers and are unable to use JBossWS implementation of WS-Security because of this. Is it possible to configure some tolerance to allow server time difference to be +/- N seconds? Thank you, Denis. View the

[jboss-user] [JBossWS] - Re: WS-Security - Invalid timestamp, message claimed to be c

2006-10-23 Thread elsisack
Could you please tell us how and where you configure that tolerance to allow server time difference? Thnaks in advance Enrique. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=3980215#3980215 Reply to the post :